Reply With Quote
us
I wasn't dismissive towards Ig. Pedantic sure but not dismissive. With Ig i was not even sarcastic or at least not attempting to be.
never started one. have you?
I wasn't dismissive towards Ig. Pedantic sure but not dismissive. With Ig i was not even sarcastic or at least not attempting to be.
whatever, dude. you got a blind spot.
I have been butthurt before. Darrin has really pissed me off with his deception for example. I haven't started a thread about it.
I don't start many threads as a matter of course though so it doesn't say much.
Did you actually wan to talk about objective rational constructs or do you want to continue trolling me?
Or perhaps you are wrong? Care to be specific as to what I am dismissive about?
Sarcasm implies intent so I can say that I am not trying to be with certainty but what specifically did I just outright dismiss with Ig?
Blindly lashing out is bad manners.
The way that I see it is that I have pedantic perspective having read on this particular subject and my preconceived notions of what he was talking about were getting in the way of my understanding what he was getting at.
I fail to see how asking him what he means is dismissive. Sorry that I am a empiricist.
WH, you have to keep in mind Fuzzy's favorite book:
a true free market does not hand out special treatment to certain industries and/or corporations.
capitalism, if unchecked, descends into fascism.
I was obviously trying to bully people in this thread.
I treat you as I do WC because you are actually not very insightful, wise or intelligent.
Yes, it's a sad truth that we need some regulations.
this doesn't make sense. In fascism, the state and economy are interconnected.
Germany and Italy weren't laissez faire before they're descent into fascism.
Infact, i don't think you know what fascist means.
true. you are pedantic and your preconceived notions do get in the way. unfortunately, much the same goes for your efforts to clarify.
what happens when airy abstractions and inflexible theories collide?
in this account, the managerial state and corporatism arise together and walk hand in hand. authentic capitalism ("freed markets"), like ideal socialism, has never been tried.
Richman construes the theraputic/managerial state as the antagonist of free capital, hence to him -- as well as Ig upstream -- the imputation of statism is dissonant, but it seems to me Fuzzy was making simple reference to a symptom (I believe) Ig and Fuzzy both agree upon: the mingling of the affairs of state and big business, with the state offering more and more direction.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-15-2012 at 09:26 AM.
I take this, roughly, to be your gloss, FuzzyBy “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.
the odd thing is that Fuzzy and Ig share a common enemy, an increasingly oligarchic state that arrogates to itself responsibility for the economy and coordinates with country's grand (TBTF) enterprises.
Since for Fuzzy, capitalism (or "the free market") means the existing embrace of big business and big government boosterism and nothing more, hence, the "free market, more and more, resembles"fascism.
a superficially plausible hypothesis, but repugnant to Ig since he sees the reigning oligarchy as a perversion of the utopian and abstracted "free market" yearned for by capitalists in an unfree world.
because of how they gloss labels like "capitalism" and "free market," Fuzzy and Ig -- who essentially agree on the problem -- end up talking past one another...
It might have an effect if it wasn't for you being the exact same way, teleology.
Are you drunk? I never made the comment about facism. The disagreement between Ig an myself was from the basis of objective morality. I never really talked to him about economics
Facism is political theory more than it is economic would be my position. That it has economic implications is just a sidecar.
You drink too much. Try and keep up.
appreciate the clarification. it was long enough coming.
sorry for losing the thread,one incoherent jackass very much resembles another.
You are going to have to do better than that. If you want to make me feel bad about being incoherent then you at least need to point to where that is. there is a difference between me trying to anticipate what ig is saying on the basis of previous reading on epistemology and saying what my position is. The former is not expressed; the latter is.
The contrary seems to be the case. I think other than your inability to read author tags, you understand what I write quite clearly and it makes you mad. That's why you have been most spiteful. I think that something i said hurt you so you lash out like a child. It does seem that you start ing whenever I explain my agnosticism.
Seriously, you calling me incoherent, dismissive or the like holds about as much weight as WC calling me stupid.
Direction and support. Moving forward the Chinese model is much preferable to the Western one with its quaint notions of personal liberty and political rights, to the managerial class. This century will have Western states continuing to ac ulate real political power at the expense of the people while the Chinese will learn to put on the show of participatory democracy.
China is not exactly a pluralist state. Do they even allow other parties than the communist one or advocacy groups? I realize there are pitfalls to that road but i don't see totalitarianism as the solution.
They will eventually, for show. It'll be cleaner than in the West. Of course, we continue to pretend every election day that there's a dime's worth of difference between the jokers on the ballot.
No doubt. I think we are a poor example of pluralism as you point out there is virtually no difference but window dressing on half of a dozen social issues. When it comes down to policy, there is little difference especially fiscally for all the obstructionism of the past 3.5 years.
So what do you propose? I think that Germany with its parliamentary system and myriad of political parties is a much better model than either the US or China.
I would love to see political party affiliation removed from ballots. Voting straight along party lines is an abomination.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
